The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Greaney wrote: »

Years ago, I'd have voted yes for marriage equality.

I have in the past, regretted one or two votes that I've cast to change our constitution, so I really think this deserves some real thought about consequences. I think many who are going to vote yes have not thought some things through (I've had some conversations where friends who would like to vote yes don't realize the rights the civil partnership affords folk), and those who are posing arguments for the 'no' side are overplaying their hand and wouldn't have convinced me.

What really astonishes me, however, is that folk think they can really convince each other how to vote. I genuinely could never convince a 'yes' advocate not to vote yes. They do not believe that changing the constitution on this matter will really change anything. Indeed, we won't know if it does or not for many years.

Thank goodness for the internet (seriously) where you can look up both sides of studies regarding same sex parenting studies (and yes, there are two sides, however, I would say that conclusions are still in their infancy), surrogacy law (a minefeild), sperm donation, adoption, Polygamy, and why significant members of the gay community in France do not support gay marriage. Please don't pooh hoo their concerns, remember 'do onto others' and at least assume that they are not stupid/uninformed/bigots but just like you, they are smart people, who've thought it over and, perhaps, come to a different conclusion. Whatever the outcome, God is sovereign.

I can accept the concept you put forward that a study should be set up to examine the effects of a YES vote in order that we won't keep "yes it does - no, it doesn't" debating this issue.

I'm a bit confused as to what you meant when you wrote above "I genuinely could never convince a 'yes' advocate not to vote yes. They do not believe that changing the constitution on this matter will really change anything." it sound's a bit contradictory.

Re the CP rights afforded people, they do not match those afforded to marriage.

I laughed (silently) at your piece about people really thinking they can convince others how to vote, it ring's so true on how we still believe we can change peoples minds while being so cynical over what the O/P is trying to "put over on us". Ditto on where you used the expression "that conclusions are still in their infancy" when you are talking about same sex parenting studies, and then follow it up by a mention of surrogacy.

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you give us some idea of these things that we're not thinking through?

Thanks.

Maybe they are similar to the thoughts of Louise and Tom from this piece in today's Irish Times:http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/no-vote-group-alleges-misleading-of-public-on-child-issues-1.2189504

newmug wrote: »

That was only sneaked in recently, WITHOUT asking the people, by the govt. who is promoting a yes vote. This has to be one of the most farcical referendum campaigns ever carried out in the Republic of Ireland.

Well hardly sneakedaked in , it was debated in the dial and had several aamendments discussed. It didn't I ping on the constitution so was not required to be put to the people. The daily we elected discussed and voted on it.
I understand that the fear is that once the marriage referendum passes it will require a referendum to reverse it, that might be true but as your objection to the law is that it wasn't put to the people, isn't that a good thing?
You can't have it both ways and ultimately the will of the people is sovereign.

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you give us some idea of these things that we're not thinking through?

Thanks.

Thank you for asking. I came across this last night. I've never come across something about assisted reproduction that comes from the point of view of the child before. It's genuinely thought provoking. It's less than 10 mins long so I hope some folk take the time to watch it. Also it doesn't smack of propaganda, but represents the children well I think.

Greaney wrote: »

Thank you for asking. I came across this last night. I've never come across something about assisted reproduction that comes from the point of view of the child before. It's genuinely thought provoking. It's less than 10 mins long so I hope some folk take the time to watch it. Also it doesn't smack of propaganda, but represents the children well I think.

Why is this specifically relevant to same-sex couples?

Or do you think heterosexuals don't use sperm donation?

Deleted User wrote: »

@ 08:27 in that video, the mother of one of the children remarks that
"there's all sorts of different families, there's husbands and wives, there's single moms, there's lesbian couples"

So I'm pretty certain that we're not talking exclusively about same sex marriage.

We aren't talking about same-sex marriage at all. We are not even talking about homosexuality - unless you are going to tell us there are enough lesbians who want to get pregnant in Ireland to make 5 clincs that offer sperm financially viable...
That video is, after all, about sperm donation.

I am struggling to see the relevance tbh....

Deleted User wrote: »

Agree. I hope Greaney can shed some light on the topic.

Ah- gotcha .

Greaney wrote: »

Bannashide, this was just to put the focus on children. There are various types of parents in this video. Most folk who use assisted reproduction presently are heterosexual, however apparently the number of Same sex couples applying for assisted reproduction is rising rapidly

http://www.ottawafertilitylaw.com/lgbtq/

That's just one link I know, but sure folk can google it and look into it themselves.

So?

And Canada?????

Greaney wrote: »

Years ago, I'd have voted yes for marriage equality.

I have in the past, regretted one or two votes that I've cast to change our constitution, so I really think this deserves some real thought about consequences. I think many who are going to vote yes have not thought some things through (I've had some conversations where friends who would like to vote yes don't realize the rights the civil partnership affords folk), and those who are posing arguments for the 'no' side are overplaying their hand and wouldn't have convinced me.

What really astonishes me, however, is that folk think they can really convince each other how to vote. I genuinely could never convince a 'yes' advocate not to vote yes. They do not believe that changing the constitution on this matter will really change anything. Indeed, we won't know if it does or not for many years.

Thank goodness for the internet (seriously) where you can look up both sides of studies regarding same sex parenting studies (and yes, there are two sides, however, I would say that conclusions are still in their infancy), surrogacy law (a minefeild), sperm donation, adoption, Polygamy, and why significant members of the gay community in France do not support gay marriage. Please don't pooh hoo their concerns, remember 'do onto others' and at least assume that they are not stupid/uninformed/bigots but just like you, they are smart people, who've thought it over and, perhaps, come to a different conclusion. Whatever the outcome, God is sovereign.

It would help the current debate a lot if people, such as yourself, didn't introduce points which are either irrelevant or downright dishonest.

Firstly, your claim here:

"I've had some conversations where friends who would like to vote yes don't realize the rights the civil partnership affords folk"

is misleading since there are 160 statutory differences between civil partnership and civil marriage which means that there are a great many rights not afforded to those couples in civil partnerships. Also, since civil partnership was only enacted through legislation it can easily be repealed by a future government and so does not benefit from the constitutional protection afforded to civil marriage.


Secondly, your claim here:

"Thank goodness for the internet (seriously) where you can look up both sides of studies regarding same sex parenting studies (and yes, there are two sides, however, I would say that conclusions are still in their infancy)"

is also misleading. While there have been studies published (e.g. Marks, Regnerus, Allen, Sullins etc.) which have claimed that same-sex parents are not as good as straight parents, these studies have been found to be methodologically flawed and politically motivated pieces of bad science. What's left is no campaigners misrepresenting solid research and claiming things that the studies they reference don't actually say. For example, Mothers and Fathers matter, on their website claim:
“The use of data on the proportion of children living in single-parent families and stepfamilies as an indicator of wellbeing may seem unfair and insensitive. Plenty of children in two-parent families are damaged by their parents’ relationships; plenty of children in single-parent and stepfamilies are growing up secure and happy. Nor can the terms ‘single-parent families’ and ‘stepfamilies’ do justice to the many different kinds of family unit that have become common in recent decades. But at the statistical level there is evidence to associate growing up in single-parent families and stepfamilies with greater risk to well-being – including a greater risk of dropping out of school, of leaving home early, of poorer health, of low skills, and of low pay. Furthermore such risks appear to persist even when the substantial effect of increased poverty levels in single-parent families and and stepfamilies with greater risk to well-being – including a greater risk of dropping out of school, of leaving home early, of poorer health, of low skills, and of low pay.”
From: Child Poverty in Perspective: An Overview of Child Wellbeing in Rich Countries UNICEF Report Card 7, 2007 http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc7_eng.pdf

However, the UNICEF Office of Research has clarified that:

"No, there was no references to same sex families in the report or its background research. Even if same-sex families were present in national survey data (which I later discovered they were) on which some of the indicators were based, they were not identified as such."

Similarly, David Quinn has misinterpreted the Child Trends study:

"This same paper goes on to say: “There is thus value in promoting strong, stable marriage between biological parents. This is our position. Take this away, and it is very hard to find any reason to give marriage special status."


when of course what the study actually said was:

"Note: This Child Trends brief summarizes research conducted in 2002, when neither same-sex parents nor adoptive parents were identified in large national surveys. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from this research about the well-being of children raised by same-sex parents or adoptive parents."

Unlike your inference about this research still being in its early days, there is in fact several decades of research on this matter and it has lead to a robust consenus being adopted in the field as well as by every major medical and psychological organisation.

Thirdly, your claim about surrogacy is irrelevant as the referendum, if passed, will have no effect on the legal status of surrogacy in this country. I have explained this in more detail on this thread already here.

Your claim about assisted human reproduction and sperm donation is also irrelevant. Firstly because assisted human reproduction has already been legislated for under the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015. Furthermore, the fact that said Act prohibits anonymous donation shows that the No arguments being made about children not knowing their mother or father are untrue.

Similarly adoption has also been dealt with under the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015. After all, when a single gay person could adopt under the old act but a couple couldn't, that didn't make a whole lot of sense. Also since the research in this area shows that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between children raised in same-sex families, there is no logical reason to restrict adoption to straight couples. Also, since in 2012 there were almost 5000 children in state care and only 49 adoption orders, restricting the pool of potential parents also makes no sense.

Ah, polygamy, that sound must be the bottom of the barrel being reached. When you have to resort to a fallacy like the slippery slope you know your argument is weak. It would be nice for those, like yourself, who imagine that polygamy is a consequence of marriage equality to explain why allowing same-sex couples to get married MUST mean that we have to allow polygamous marriages.

Finally, to top it off you claim this:

"why significant members of the gay community in France do not support gay marriage."

Firstly, so what? What does the opinions of some gay people in France have to do with anything? If like you claim, they have concerns, then lets hear the concerns instead, it would be more productive, but arguing that a reason to vote No is because some gay people said so is just silly.

On a side note, why is it that the no side keep borrowing their arguments from the Simpsons. I mean you've got the Helen Lovejoy argument:

"Won't somebody please think of the children?"

the Homer argument:

"John: What do you have against gay people Homer?
Homer: You know, it's not, ususal. If there was a law it would be against it."

and now in your post we have the Marge Simpson argument:

"Call me a killjoy, but I think that because this is not to my taste, no one else should be able to enjoy it."

There is the scope for a valid debate to be had here. But clogging up the discussion with irrelevant and misleading points is deeply unhelpful.